If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I bought Nursery Crymes and listened with an open mind about 3 years ago....

People call it music, but all I heard was a joke. How in the hell did they convince a label to release that stuff? I'm a prog fan from Circa 1972. But Nursery Crymes is gawd awful. No wonder Rolling stone was so anti-prog. With stuff like this coming out, why would anyone say otherwise?

Wow. I love "Nursery Cryme." If you're a prog fan from the 70's then I wonder what it is you even listen to?

I would not assume that at all. Many (most?) early CDs were mastered just like vinyl, but not unlike most vinyl pressings, the engineers weren't always credited.

I think CD#1 of the original Lamb on Atco (Virgin/Charisma's UK release was the same in this case) sounds pretty damned good (certainly the best CD mastering). CD#2 is way too bright. My guess is that somebody put some tinny EQ on that or didn't playback the tapes right or something. Way too much treble.

As I've said for quite a few years about this album, one can pick up a minty German Charisma LP for about $20. The sound on this as good as I've heard. Better even than the original UK LP and certainly better than the Classic reissue. However, ANY vinyl copy will lay ANY CD version to waste, IMO.

Which CD version of The Lamb had that godawful hum? That was my first Lamb experience!

^The original mixes haven't been touched for over 20 years now. The 'definitive remasters' (1994-ish, I think) were the last time they were used. I'd like to see them out again, done properly this time!

Which CD version of The Lamb had that godawful hum? That was my first Lamb experience!

That hum is on the original UK LP pressing. May well be on the original tapes. The "Definitive Edition" CD seemed to be from the same source as the original CD but just removed the hum with heavy-handed digital noise removal. Basically killing a fly with a machine gun and stripping the life out of the recording in the process, IMO.

I think calling that little hum noticeable only on very quiet passages "godawful" is an overstatement of epic proportion, but as I recall the problem was corrected on the 2nd UK vinyl pressing. Its not on the German LP pressing.

Anyway ... that hum is not unique to the original CD release. It was on the original UK vinyl pressing.

That hum is on the original UK LP pressing. May well be on the original tapes. The "Definitive Edition" CD seemed to be from the same source as the original CD but just removed the hum with heavy-handed digital noise removal. Basically killing a fly with a machine gun and stripping the life out of the recording in the process, IMO.

I think calling that little hum noticeable only on very quiet passages "godawful" is an overstatement of epic proportion, but as I recall the problem was corrected on the 2nd UK vinyl pressing. Its not on the German LP pressing.

Anyway ... that hum is not unique to the original CD release. It was on the original UK vinyl pressing.

I've generally enjoyed the Gabriel era box, worts and all. I have the old vinyl if I ever need to revisit the originals. It's nice to hear the songs with more clarity, albeit too much compression & volume.
Of this batch, Selling England's mix is most similar to the original, I think, with Foxtrot being the most "improved" (if you're into remixes, that is). The Lamb is a mixed bag; it's truly an "alternate version" with lots of pluses and minuses.
I think the remixing is one issue (you're into it or not, depending on your tastes), but the mastering of these boxes is the other, bigger issue. The mastering is too loud (maybe even to the point of clipping) and, in the case of the late 70s box, unbelievably shrill EQ. Duke is the worst offender, IMO, and with so much compression on the drum kit (or is it the whole mix?) as to be distracting.

I've never bothered with the 80s box, however.

Have we ever collected a comprehensive list here on PE of the omissions in these remixes?

It's not the compression, its the fact that an idiot did the compression which is needed for CD. Nick Davis admitted that the mastering of the 5.1 SACDs had less of a compression impact because the power is split out, whereas the stereo combines all of the audio power into 2 channels. Such a great job was done as far as quality of the mixing which was analog SSL. However, it's how the compression of 3 dB specified by Davis was implemented. It was done on the whole mix, of course differently for stereo versus 5.1. Ideally it would be done in analog with a tube, but I don't think it was. Digital by definition hard limits. There is no way I would describe the 5.1 remixes on SACD as loud.

"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible", Frank Zappa.

It's not the compression, its the fact that an idiot did the compression which is needed for CD. Nick Davis admitted that the mastering of the 5.1 SACDs had less of a compression impact because the power is split out, whereas the stereo combines all of the audio power into 2 channels. Such a great job was done as far as quality of the mixing which was analog SSL. However, it's how the compression of 3 dB specified by Davis was implemented. It was done on the whole mix, of course differently for stereo versus 5.1. Ideally it would be done in analog with a tube, but I don't think it was. Digital by definition hard limits. There is no way I would describe the 5.1 remixes on SACD as loud.

As I recall, he was asked to use about 3db of compression or that decision was arrived at. Probably in consultation as opposed to exclusive creative license, and I suspect to be "competitive" with current mastering trends but so not as to overdo it.

If you think that 3db of mastering compression accounts for the stereo remixes having about half the dynamic range of the originals, you're drinking a very special blend of Nick Davis "Passing The Buck" brand koolaid.

As I recall, he was asked to use about 3db of compression or that decision was arrived at. Probably in consultation as opposed to exclusive creative license, and I suspect to be "competitive" with current mastering trends but so not as to overdo it.

If you think that 3db of mastering compression accounts for the stereo remixes having about half the dynamic range of the originals, you're drinking a very special blend of Nick Davis "Passing The Buck" brand koolaid.

Reviewers who listen to the stereo mix on SACD are not hearing the problems on CD:Contrary to what a previous reviewer mentioned regarding compression, it must be said that this may well apply to the CD layer but on the SACD Stereo layer the sound is absolutely crystal clear and sharp with the drums literally banging you in the face. This is a great 'drum' album (Abacab) and the SACD format really does it justice. This version is by far the best that has ever been available and leaves behind the previous remaster. Having not listened to the CD layer I cannot comment on the compression issues but for anyone with SACD capabilities this (and the other Genesis SACD releases) come very highly recommended. "

I wish I had a SACD player... the sound is indeed very compressed on the CD layer, but I'm pretty much convinced that the SACD would have a better sound. But if it doesn't have, is there any possibility that it was not Nick Davis' fault? What if the compression was added later, after the mixes were approved by the band. I once read somebody complaining about how the remastering engineer Tony Cousins ruined the mixes.

Cousins may be the idiot.

"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible", Frank Zappa.

This is an interesting page, it begins with a recording engineer slandering the Genesis remixes for EQ, not compression, and then Gregory Spawton (of Big Big Train says that the recording engineer has an axe to grind with Davis)http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R4796ANVUJ89
Gregory Spawton says:
I strongly advise prospective purchasers to ignore this review. Mr Tate has been waging a personal campaign against Nick Davis, who mixed these albums.

In 2008, Mr Tate e-mailed Tony Cousins, the engineer who mastered these recordings and printed the mastering engineer's 'reply' on the Hoffman 'Audiophile' forum. In the e-mail, Tony Cousins seemed to confirm that Nick Davis had used a lot of compression at the mixing stage. The only thing was, Tony Cousins never said it. The e-mail had actually been altered before posting to make it appear as if he had. The thread on the Hoffman forum was subsequently deleted and Mr Tate apologised.

I am very surprised that Mr Tate has reared his head here to continue this obsessive campaign against Nick Davis' work, but he clearly has no shame. He is simply cutting and pasting the same review for all of the Genesis re-releases (whether the box sets or each individual album). Readers should judge for themselves whether Mr Tate's views have any credibility.

"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible", Frank Zappa.

Reviewers who listen to the stereo mix on SACD are not hearing the problems on CD:Contrary to what a previous reviewer mentioned regarding compression, it must be said that this may well apply to the CD layer but on the SACD Stereo layer the sound is absolutely crystal clear and sharp with the drums literally banging you in the face. This is a great 'drum' album (Abacab) and the SACD format really does it justice. This version is by far the best that has ever been available and leaves behind the previous remaster. Having not listened to the CD layer I cannot comment on the compression issues but for anyone with SACD capabilities this (and the other Genesis SACD releases) come very highly recommended. "

I wish I had a SACD player... the sound is indeed very compressed on the CD layer, but I'm pretty much convinced that the SACD would have a better sound. But if it doesn't have, is there any possibility that it was not Nick Davis' fault? What if the compression was added later, after the mixes were approved by the band. I once read somebody complaining about how the remastering engineer Tony Cousins ruined the mixes.

Cousins may be the idiot.

Who are you quoting here?

The stereo layer of the SACDs are the same, crappy mixes with the same, awful results.

I bought Nursery Crymes and listened with an open mind about 3 years ago....

People call it music, but all I heard was a joke. How in the hell did they convince a label to release that stuff? I'm a prog fan from Circa 1972. But Nursery Crymes is gawd awful. No wonder Rolling stone was so anti-prog. With stuff like this coming out, why would anyone say otherwise?

Could not disagree more.

But then again, I remain lukewarm toward Dream Theater and prog metal in general.

This is an interesting page, it begins with a recording engineer slandering the Genesis remixes for EQ, not compression, and then Gregory Spawton (of Big Big Train says that the recording engineer has an axe to grind with Davis)http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R4796ANVUJ89
Gregory Spawton says:
I strongly advise prospective purchasers to ignore this review. Mr Tate has been waging a personal campaign against Nick Davis, who mixed these albums.

In 2008, Mr Tate e-mailed Tony Cousins, the engineer who mastered these recordings and printed the mastering engineer's 'reply' on the Hoffman 'Audiophile' forum. In the e-mail, Tony Cousins seemed to confirm that Nick Davis had used a lot of compression at the mixing stage. The only thing was, Tony Cousins never said it. The e-mail had actually been altered before posting to make it appear as if he had. The thread on the Hoffman forum was subsequently deleted and Mr Tate apologised.

I am very surprised that Mr Tate has reared his head here to continue this obsessive campaign against Nick Davis' work, but he clearly has no shame. He is simply cutting and pasting the same review for all of the Genesis re-releases (whether the box sets or each individual album). Readers should judge for themselves whether Mr Tate's views have any credibility.

I can't remember what happened on that email, but as I recall the story was a bit different. I believe Jamie had accidentally copied and pasted an email where he added some additional remarks for emphasis to what Cousins was saying and had sent to a friend. But I really can't say. I could ask Jamie about it, but frankly I just don't give a damn. This is ancient stuff and it's not really my business.

It's my belief that you continue to delude yourself about what happened on those remixes and I don't know why. To blame 3db of compression added in MASTERING for how those MIXES sound? Are you actually serious about this? You know enough about audio to KNOW this is UTTER NONSENSE. And this is coming from someone who despises the use of any mastering compression.

Your business, your ears, but those stereo remixes have MEASURABLY about half the dynamic range of the originals. This is objective stuff. But hey ... some people like them. Heck, I'm sure Genesis themselves wanted them to sound that way and Davis provided a sound which pleased them.

Jamie Tate called out the overuse of the compressor on the SSL console which Davis uses because he used to have an SSL and knows how that thing sounds when its compressor is used to those levels. He was also a big fan of Nick Davis' work prior to those Genesis remixes, so the notion that he somehow decided to be on some "crusade" against him is just people wanting to make people who don't like the remixes feel that they are wrong. That what they are hearing isn't true. That it is something about the transfer to hi-res, or they should get the hi-res, or they should get the CDs, or their system isn't right. BULLSHIT. The mixes aren't to everyone's taste; period.

In the end, how those remixes got to where they are is somewhat irrelevant. Some people like 'em, some don't.

Reviewers who listen to the stereo mix on SACD are not hearing the problems on CD:Contrary to what a previous reviewer mentioned regarding compression, it must be said that this may well apply to the CD layer but on the SACD Stereo layer the sound is absolutely crystal clear and sharp with the drums literally banging you in the face. This is a great 'drum' album (Abacab) and the SACD format really does it justice. This version is by far the best that has ever been available and leaves behind the previous remaster. Having not listened to the CD layer I cannot comment on the compression issues but for anyone with SACD capabilities this (and the other Genesis SACD releases) come very highly recommended. "

I wish I had a SACD player... the sound is indeed very compressed on the CD layer, but I'm pretty much convinced that the SACD would have a better sound. But if it doesn't have, is there any possibility that it was not Nick Davis' fault? What if the compression was added later, after the mixes were approved by the band. I once read somebody complaining about how the remastering engineer Tony Cousins ruined the mixes.

Cousins may be the idiot.

No way. I have the SACD's and they sound the same as the redbook cd's. Cold, hard and loud.

I can't remember what happened on that email, but as I recall the story was a bit different. I believe Jamie had accidentally copied and pasted an email where he added some additional remarks for emphasis to what Cousins was saying and had sent to a friend. But I really can't say. I could ask Jamie about it, but frankly I just don't give a damn. This is ancient stuff and it's not really my business.

It's my belief that you continue to delude yourself about what happened on those remixes and I don't know why. To blame 3db of compression added in MASTERING for how those MIXES sound? Are you actually serious about this? You know enough about audio to KNOW this is UTTER NONSENSE. And this is coming from someone who despises the use of any mastering compression.

Your business, your ears, but those stereo remixes have MEASURABLY about half the dynamic range of the originals. This is objective stuff. But hey ... some people like them. Heck, I'm sure Genesis themselves wanted them to sound that way and Davis provided a sound which pleased them.

Jamie Tate called out the overuse of the compressor on the SSL console which Davis uses because he used to have an SSL and knows how that thing sounds when its compressor is used to those levels. He was also a big fan of Nick Davis' work prior to those Genesis remixes, so the notion that he somehow decided to be on some "crusade" against him is just people wanting to make people who don't like the remixes feel that they are wrong. That what they are hearing isn't true. That it is something about the transfer to hi-res, or they should get the hi-res, or they should get the CDs, or their system isn't right. BULLSHIT. The mixes aren't to everyone's taste; period.

In the end, how those remixes got to where they are is somewhat irrelevant. Some people like 'em, some don't.

I've read through all the posts on this thread. I recently decided to give the 2007 remixes another go downloaded/ripped lossless versions of all Phil era, lamb and foxtrot. Also from the 2009 live box set the way we walk, three sides live and seconds out. I found the live versions clear and crisp. The DR ratios are slightly lower than the 94/original versions. However, the recapture of live sound through improved mastering outweighs the small loss in DR. Many agree with this view, some suggest Nick Davis learned from the mastering/EQ errors from the 2007 remixes, as the live box came out in 2009.

The Phil era and Gabriel era 2007 simply put are horribly mastered. DR's of 9 across the board, they are the definition of brick walled. After listening for more than 3 minutes at a moderate volume my ears start to hurt! And it's too bad, as the new remixes have many positive merits. First of all, they are much clearer and more precise. You hear sounds through out that are difficult to pick out on the 94 DE's. The bass is up in the mix, clear and punchy. And that's about it for the positive. The compression is so high, the recordings sound muffled/monotone. Simplistically said, they don't sound like the great sweet sounding versions of previous Genesis releases. So...

I decided to re-rip (ALAC) all of my 94 DE's - and am extremely happy that I did so. The difference between a 13DR and a highly compressed 9DR is night and day. You can crank the 94DE's and there is no pain in the your ear. The music sounds crisp and sweet due to the additional dynamic range. Even if the mixes are a bit muddier, it doesn't matter. I've replace all the 2007's except for the Lamb, which somehow I sold. So I've re-purchased the 94DE Lamb on Amazon (lol $7, of which $4 was shipping) used on Amazon. Also, Genesis (83), Invisible Touch (86) and We Can't Dance (91) can be very dynamically listened to by sticking with the original year CD. All have 12+ DR's and sound great.

So the interim answer is to switch back to the 94DE for the studio releases. The long term answer is to get Steve Wilson to remix the whole catalog. His work with the Yes releases has been outstanding! Wilson remix/remastering's are my Genesis catalog holy grail.

I've read through all the posts on this thread. I recently decided to give the 2007 remixes another go downloaded/ripped lossless versions of all Phil era, lamb and foxtrot. Also the live box set way we walk, three sides live and seconds out. I found the live versions clear and crisp. The DR ratios are slightly lower than the 94/original versions. However, the recapture of live sound through improved mastering outweighs the small loss in DR. Many agree with this view, some suggest Nick Davis learned from the mastering/EQ errors from the 2007 remixes, as the live box came out in 2009.

The Phil era and Gabriel era 2007 simply put,made horribly mastered. DR of 9 across the board, they are the definition of brick walled. After listening for more than 3 minutes at a moderate volume my ears start to hurt! And it's too bad, as the new remixes have many positive merits. First of all, they are much clearer and more precise. You hear sounds through out that are difficult to pick out on the 94 DE's. The bass is up in the mix, clear and punchy. And that's about it for the positive. The compression is so high, the recordings sound muffled/monotone. Simplistically said, they don't sound like the great sweet list wing versions of previous Genesis releases. So...

I decided to re-rip (ALAC) all of my 94 DE's - and am extremely happy that I did so. The difference between a 13DR and a highly compressed 9DR is night and day. You can crank the 94DE's and there is no pain in the your ear. The music sounds crisp and sweet due to the additional dynamic range. Even if the mixes are a bit muddier, it doesn't matter. I've replace all the 2007's except for the Lamb, which somehow I sold. So I've re-purchased the 94DE Lamb on Amazon (lol $7, of which $4 was shipping) used on Amazon.

So the interim answer is to switch back to the 94DE for the studio releases. The long term answer is to get Steve Wilson to remix the whole catalog. His work with the Yes releases has been outstanding!

Or just find the Virgin/Charsima UK pressings. Most of those are phenomenal and my only go-to's these days on disc.

The answer is not, for me, to get more remixes, but to get the originals back out there again. Yes, there are irritating imperfections (the studio 'Supper's Ready' for instance reflects a real rush job towards the end), but I'd rather that than these remixes.